In State v. Harry, Butler App. No. CA2008-01-013, 2008 Ohio 6380, the Court addressed an essentially identical argument by appellant's co-defendant DeMarion Javon Harry regarding the same warrant at issue in this case. In Harry we found "that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed" and as such we found "it unnecessary to determine whether the trial court's good faith analysis was correct." Id. at P10. In Harry the Court found that because probable cause existed it was unnecessary to examine whether the good faith exception applied to the warrant. Id. at P25. The Court required the issuing judge, "'to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'" Id. at P19, quoting Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The Court also recognized that an issuing judge is allowed to find probable cause based "'on hearsay in whole or in part, provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information.'" Id., quoting Crim.R. 41(C).